Not enough energy for a rant, just thought you all might have a chuckle at this.
I personally love that they are striving to get at the original intent of the scripture by using the English King James translation. Also, this just in: the word “government” itself is inherently pro-liberal.
I feel compelled to reiterate that this isn’t an Onion article.
Worst. Colour combo for link text and background. Ever.
I cannot help wondering (perhaps I’m just too much of an optimist around human intelligence and critical thinking) whether a number of the Conservapedia contributors are not perhaps sailing under false colours.
Attempting to liberalize, correct facts, or inject reason on that site would seem to be a lost cause… but posing as ultra-right and indeed pulling even further right could work and yet at the same time approach (heck, “surpass”) levels of absurdity that the more mainstream of their demographic would find persuasive.
I especially like the idea that they might exclude Luke 23:34 on the grounds that it doesn’t appear in other gospels… following that principle should be fun. 
I like how they seem to think the apostles who have their names attached to gospels actually wrote them themselves.
I’ve never really decided if conservapedia is an elaborate joke or if it’s mostly serious.
Either way, it’s really good for a laugh sometimes, and this is one of them.
Wow. **Conservapedia still exists? Why do people waste their time disparaging Wikipedia when there’s an outfit like this happily wading in a virtual sea of dumbth?
**
I understand that who qualifies as a Conservapedia contributor is heavily restricted in order to prevent that.
Who needs gender in English? We can define nouns and create specific articles for them on the basis of a liberal/conservative dichotomy.
But if they’re not [under false colours] then… then… man, that’s one great big block of dumb.
Authentic Conservapedia contributors = list of people who should be asked not to paddle in the gene-pool.
I tried to contribute some, just doing some cleanup because of horrible formatting. Got banned in my first day.
I think we should help.
Hmmm… how would a conservative re-write the encounter between Jesus and the Money Changers?
In the perversely liberal traditional bibles, Jesus says, “My house was intended to be a house of prayer, but you have turned it into a den of thieves.” The new conservative passage should be, “As the operator of a sacred and unrestricted marketplace, the church cannot be responsible for monitoring the practices of every enterprise doing business on the grounds. Worshippers are reminded that God helps those who help themselves. Read your contracts carefully.”
It’s the “Sensitive” that gave you away…
I think the Conservapedia article expects “mastership of the Bible” to mean “ownership of the brain of all Christians.” Good luck with that, it doesn’t work for the Pope with Catholics.
I have no idea what this is in reference to. Could someone tell me?
Anyway, I find it interesting that the “Conservative Bible Project” ignores the fact that King James was a big gay queen.
When I first clicked on the op’s link it had links with dark blue backgrounds and a slightly different shade of dark blue for the links themselves. You couldn’t see what the links said unless you hovered over them. The page is not like that now so it must have been a script error.
As for the conservatism, it makes me want to cry and kill puppies and kittens, so the most significant I was willing to contribute without resorting to animal infanticide was to mention the painful colour combination.
Andy Schlafly (son of Phyllis “all women should be meek and submissive except me” Schlafly) runs the place with an iron tentacle; anyone who doesn’t subscribe to his own particular, very narrow worldview is labelled as “liberal” and cast into the outer darkness, so to speak. As a result, Conservapedia is a very tiny echo chamber.
It’d be funny if it weren’t so weep-inducingly sad.
Ok, not a North American. So explain, what the hell is that drivel?
Hey, put that brush down, most of us don’t get it either.
Or the parable of the Good Samaritan? Perhaps the Good Samaritan goes broke providing free healthcare to undocumented travelers.
I don’t think AK84 meant that it’s “something Americans do,” but it is “something that comes from America so Americans are more likely to know what it is.” He was requesting information, not questioning your collective intelligence.
Coservapedia is a “wiki” written by people who make Rockefeller and McCarthy sound like a pair of dirty commies. In this case, they’re proposing rewriting the Bible in a way befitting their political ideology, eliminating anything which may smack of La Revolución or of Socialism, emphasizing its free market values (excuse me, I just got the silliest cough) and so forth. In other words, they want to “1984” the Bible.
Now, while co-opting religion or its texts isn’t exactly a new idea in politics, most people refrain from being so blatant about it.
IIRC, AK84 is from Pakistan. Maybe it might be helpful to make an analogy between the the cult of Conservapedia and that of Qutbism.